Lab1 – Direct Shear test

Group 1: Sobhan Bhattacharya, Yu-Wei Hwang, Yu-Hsuan Lee

Objective
Use direct shear test to measure the peak, residual envelops and dilatancy of sands
with different fine content but same void ratio, and study how it affects these behaviors.

Procedure
The test was designed for three different fine contents i.e. 5% 12% and 20% by weight.
The ‘fine’ is defined by the sand particles passing through 200 size (0.075 mm) sieve. Two
tests for each fine content (i.e. a total of six tests) were conducted for 10 lb and 30 lb normal
loading. Sieve analysis was performed for each of the sand to study their grain size
distribution.
Sample preparation
Sand provided in the Geotech Lab was sieved in # 200 (0.075mm size) to obtain the
fine. The obtained ‘fine’ (passed through 200 sieve) and ‘coarse’ (retained on 200 sieve)
were kept separately (figure 1(a)(b)). For a required amount of fine content, the coarse and
fine were mixed together according to weight proportion to obtain the sand sample with
different fine content of sand samples (figure 1(c)(d)). Table 1 shows the amount of fine
and coarse used. One 300g sand sample was prepared for each fine content. After
performing the first test for each fine content, the same sample was used for the second test
assuming there was no particle breakage and loosing. The grain size distribution of the
model is shown in figure 14.
Table 1. The amount of fine and coarse particles in different sample

Fine Content % Fine Fine weight % Coarse Coarse Weight

5% 5% 15 g 95% 285 g
12% 12% 36 g 88% 264 g
20% 20% 60 g 80% 240 g

Direct shear test

A total of six tests (two tests for each fine contents) were performed. The procedure
was repeated six times for six tests except soil filling step is different to remain the same
volume. A computer programing was used record the outputs (shear force vs. shear or
lateral displacement and vertical displacement vs. shear or lateral displacement) from the
direct shear test apparatus.
1. The internal sizes of the square cell (i.e. length and width) were measured.
2. The mass of the cap and ball bearing were measured and later this is added to
the weight of mass hanger to calculate the normal load on the shear box
assemble.
3. The upper and lower part of the shear box was assembled and aligned by
inserting the mounting pins on the opposite corner of the box.
4. The internal depth of the assembled shear (dbox) box was measured from the top
of the bottom grooved plate (which was already mounted in the bottom part of
the shear box, the groove of the plate was visible and aligned perpendicular to
the shear direction).
5. The thickness of the top grooved plate (tplate) measured which is eventually be
placed above the sand sample.
6. The mass of the top grooved plate was measured.
7. The mass of the empty shear box with two grooved plates (mounted bottom one
and separated top one) was measured.
8. For 12% test, air-pouring is used without funnel to fill the assembled shear box
with sand sample that top grooved plate flush with the top of the shear box. For
5% test, the same mass of sand sample is filling with air-pouring without funnel,
and then the sample is compacted to the height or shear box. For 20 %, full air-
pouring is used to make looser sample. (figure 2 (a)(b)(c))
9. The mass of the shear box with the sand sample was measured. The mass of the
shear box only was measured before, hence the mass of the sand sample was
calculated.
10. Top groove plate was placed on the top of the sand sample keeping the groove
perpendicular to the shear direction.
11. The shear box (sand sample covered with the top groove plate) was placed in
direct shear (DS) machine. The cap and ball bearing were put on the top of the
grooved plate. The handle wheel was rotated clockwise until the shear box came
into contact with the load cell.
12. The counterweight hanger system was placed on the top of the ball bearing
(figure 3(d)). The weight of the counterweight hanger was 13 lb (57.8 N). Dead
weight (10 lb or 30 lb depending on the test) was locked at the bottom of counter
weight hanger in the balancing mechanism. This counter weight with dead
weight provided the major protion of normal load on the sand sample in the
shear box.
13. There were two linear variable differential transformers (LVDTs) mounted in
the DS machine to measure shear and normal displacements during the test
(figure 3). The normal displacement LVDT was kept in contact with the top of
the counter weight hanger bar and shear displacement LVDT was kept in
contact with the shear box. These LVDTs were connected to the computer and
the variation of vertical displacement vs. lateral displacement could be obtained
from the output files of the software used. The data from the shear displacement
 LVDT were used to calculate the corrected area of the sand sample to calculate
accurate shear stress on the shear plane of the sample.
14. The two screws (which were used to assemble upper and lower portion of the
shear box and located in the opposite corner) were removed.
15. The gap between upper and lower box was adjusted by turning the other set of
screws by turning one and a half times. These screws were in the opposite
corner of the box.
16. The data measurement software was activated (‘run’ command in the computer)
just before turning the (motor mounted on the DS apparatus) ‘on’.
17. The motor was started and the loading (i.e. applying of shear or lateral
displacement) was applied. The relative displacement between upper and lower
portion of the shear box was observed and at the same time the variation of
shear force vs. lateral displacement and vertical displacement vs. lateral
displacement were observed in the computer. The sample was sheared until
shear displacement becomes approximately 10 mm or shear force becomes
constant whichever comes first. For most of the tests for the current experiment,
the samples were sheared until shear displacement becomes approximately 10
mm.
18. The data measurement software was deactivated.
19. The motor was turned off and the handle wheel was rotated manually in
counterclockwise (to the opposite direction of shear), counterweight hanger
system was displaced and the shear box was taken out from DS apparatus.
20. The sand sample was taken out from the shear box, remixed and used for the
second test. (figure 2(e))

Results
The raw data of the experiments is summarized in figure 4. From figure 4, all the
specimen could be categorized as the loose sand according to the observations:
1. The value of peak shear force was very close to the residual shear force, which was the
typical behavior of loose sand.
2. Although there was a little bit dilative tendency during shearing, but the dilatancy was
relatively small, which can be nearly regarded as zero.
3. The unit weight of the specimen was only 16.32 kN/m3, and the corresponding void
ratio was nearly 0.6 which was considered as the loose state for typical soil.
In the following section, this study will be discussed from the viewpoint of loose sand
behavior.
After the post processing, all the data was shown in terms of shear stress and the
volume change as shown in fig.5. Fig. 6-8 shows the stress-displacement and vertical-
lateral displacement curves for the specimen with 5%, 12% and 20% fine content (FC),
respectively. For the specimen with 5% FC, the specimen with lower vertical stress showed
zero volume change, and the specimen with higher vertical stress showed a slightly
contractive tendency at first and showed relatively larger dilatancy later, but the specimen
seems reached critical state after the shear box sheared 5 mm. For the soil with 12% FC,
the finer particles were more enough to affect the overall behavior of the specimen. In the
lower vertical stress test the specimen seems showing two different peaks. When the fine
content increased to 20%, the structure of the specimen seems much stable. For the case
with small vertical stress, the specimen showed a little bit contractive tendency.
Fig.9 shows the comparisons of the stress and vertical displacement versus lateral
displacement for 5%, 12% and 20% fine content with lower vertical stress. The specimen
with 12% fine content showed greater initial stiffness and much more dilatancy on volume
change. The peak stress seems larger for 5% fine content, but the residual stresses are
similar for different fine content but same initial void ratio. On the other hand, the peak
stress would occur much earlier for the soil with small fine content, and vice versa. In fig.
9, the peak stress for FC 5% occurred when lateral displacement reached 1-2 mm, but the
peak stress for 12% occurred when the lateral displacement reached 3-4 mm. Fig.10 shows
the comparisons of the stress and vertical displacement versus lateral displacement for 5%,
12% and 20% fine content with large vertical stress. According to the results, the stress and
volume change behavior for different fine content were similar to the cases with small
vertical stress. It is interesting that the stress behavior was almost the same between 12%
and 20% fine content, but the volume change behavior was different. In large vertical stress
level, the delay of peak stress was much significant for the specimen with higher fine
content, but the dilatancy behavior was relatively large for the specimen with lower fine
content.
The results of the effective friction angle for different fine content were shown in
Table. 4, and the Mohr Coulomb failure envelope for peak stress and residual stress were
displayed in fig. 11 and 12, respectively. The peak friction angle was slightly larger for
specimen with 5% FC, and the value slightly decayed for FC 12%, then raised back a little
bit for FC 20%. For residual friction angle, all tests show similar results. Fig. 13 compares
the results with the data proposed by Acar et al. 1982. The data point in this study matches
the trend for typical sand in reference well, which indicates that the experiment results are
reliable enough.
Discussion
Sources of errors
1. During sample preparation and the tests, finer particles are easily lost.
2. In air pouring step, coarse particles have tendency to fill the bottom earlier than fine
particles since air resistance. We try to avoid it by using spoon to do the pouring,
but it may still affect the result.
3. While removing the extra soil from shear box and making a flat surface, some
compaction may be applied to the specimen unintendedly and affect the void ratio.
But since the height didn’t change seriously and it should only affect the void ratio
on the top instead of the shearing area in the middle of the specimen, it should be
acceptable.
Stress-displacement and volume change behavior
It was plausible to consider the vertical stress for DS05P10LB1 was the critical
vertical stress because of zero volume change. Furthermore, one could expect that the
specimen would become a slightly denser when the vertical stress increased, then the void
ratio would slightly drop to dense region and later raised back to critical state due to
shearing. However, it is too risk to do this conclusion before we could repeat these results
again.
The two different peaks in 12% FC lower vertical stress test might come from the
structure of the specimen were not stable when the applied confining pressure was small.
After the unstable structured was collapsed and a much denser structure formed, the stress
of the specimen increased again until it reached critical state. For the specimen with higher
vertical stress, the specimen started to show some dilatancy after shearing for a while,
which may be attribute to the same reason for the case with small vertical stress.
The contractive tendency in 20%FC lower vertical stress test was because the fine
particle would have much more freedom to rotate till its stable position during shearing.
The accidentally drop of stress was considered as particles stuck between the shearing
location and the shear box, which made the shearing force taken by particles and box rather
than load cell. After particles rolling out of the position, shear force could be transmitted
to the load cell successfully, which made the curve move back to the right place.
In general, it seems that the peak shear strength and residual shear strength are
independent of fine contents. However, it is interesting that the structure of specimen
became not stable for critical fine content, 12%, and the system would be stable again when
the fine content increased. Regarding the initial stiffness, it seems that only with 5% FC,
the initial responding stiffness will be larger with larger vertical stress.
Influence of fine content on soil behavior
In general, the degree of fine content affected the volume change behavior and the
location of peak stress occurred. The major reason might be the way we prepared the
specimen. Because we prepared finer particles through sieve analysis, the mineral
properties of finer particle should be similar to coarser particles, which implies the friction
between particles be the same for different FC (i.e. 𝜙cv would be the same for all specimen).
Therefore, it’s reasonable that the residual stress for different specimen converged at large
lateral deformation state. On the other hand, the volume change tendency for coarse particle
is relatively larger, which cause the peak stress for the 5% FC specimen content slightly
larger (i.e. 𝜙p =𝜙cv +𝜙r). If we keep increasing the fine content, the coarse particle will act
like floating within the finer particles, then the soil behavior will be controlled by finer
particles.
Influence of fine content on effective friction angle
Since the 𝜙peak and 𝜙cv were similar for all the cases, the initial state of specimen could
be regarded as loose sand, which was consistent with the above observation. For loose sand,
it seems that the degree of fine content only had minor impact on the strength but had much
more influence on the deformation behavior.
Though our experiment results matched with literature, we don’t have the enough data
to conclude that whether the degree of fine content would increase or decrease the strength
of soil because our specimen only presented the loose state. If we compacted the specimen
to the dense state, the shear strength for the dense soil might increase when fine content
increased because it would be much easier for coarser particles to rolling and climbing due
to increase in contact area between particles.

Conclusion
In this study, the direct shear tests were performed on loose sand specimen with
different fine content. The preparation of specimen was difficult because higher fine
content makes the soil have tendency to become denser, which makes it difficult to keep
the void ratio as the constant value. Therefore, this study used two ways to pour the sample
inside the shear box for each lower and higher fine content sample and ensured the initial
height of the specimen would be the same. In general, the specimen showed loose sand
behavior for its stress response, and we could find the residual state for each test at the end
of the shearing. The experiment results showed that the degree of fine content didn’t have
too much effect on the strength of soil, but it would affect the volume change behavior. For
example, for the specimen with higher fine content, the location of peak stress occurred in
larger lateral displacement level, and vice versa. On the other hand, the soil structure was
relatively not stable for the specimen with 12% fine content, which was considered as the
start point that the amount of finer particle was enough to affect the overall response of the
specimen. However, the influence of fine content to the shear strength of soil needs more
tests and specimen with different fine content and initial void ratio to validate.
Appendix A – Data
Table 2. Measurements of shear box
Shear box width (cm) 6.35
Shear box height (cm) 4.15
Mass of cap + ball (g) 439.52
Cap thickness (cm) 1.6
Mass of empty shear box + bottom plate (g) 2362.86
Mass of shear box + soil (g) 2641.34
Specific gravity 2.67

Table 3. The soil mass of each test (i.e. The specimen is controlled by same d)
FC (%) Dead Weight (kPa) Soil Mass (g)
10 lb 278.49
5
30 lb 278.54
10 lb 278.48
12
30 lb 278.52
10 lb 278.78
20
30 lb 278.66

Table 4. Test results for each specimen

FC (%) v (kPa) max (kPa) residual (kPa) peak cv

25.7 23.7 19.6

5 41.6 40.4
47.7 42.3 40.8

25.7 23.3 21.8

12 39.9 39.6
47.7 39.8 39.4

25.7 22.0 20.8

20 40.2 39.1
47.7 40.4 38.8
Appendix B – Figures

(a) (b)

(c) (d)
Figure 1. (a) Weighing of the fines after sieving on # 200 size sieve. (b) Separation of
‘fine’ and ‘coarse’ sand before mixing according to fine content. (c) Putting together of
fine and coarse sand. (d) Mixing of fine and coarse to prepare sand samples for test.
(a) (b)

(c)

(d) (e)
Figure 2. (a) Surface flattening (b) Compaction (c) Sample height at height of shear box
(d) Placing of counterweight loading on the ball bearing (e) Breaking of shear box to
collect the sand sample.

Figure 3. DS apparatus used for testing

Figure 4. Summary of experiment results in terms of shear force and volume change
Figure 5. Summary of experiment results in terms of shear stress and volume change

Figure 6. Stress and vertical displacement versus lateral displacement for 5% FC

Figure 7. Stress and vertical displacement versus lateral displacement for 12% FC

Figure 8. Stress and vertical displacement versus lateral displacement for 20% FC
Figure 9. The stress and vertical displacement versus lateral displacement for 5%, 12%
and 20% FC with small vertical stress

Figure 10. The stress and vertical displacement versus lateral displacement for 5%, 12%
and 20% FC with large vertical stress
 Figure 11. The Mohr coulomb failure envelope for peak stress

Figure 12. The Mohr coulomb failure envelope for residual stress
Figure 13. Comparison with Acar et all. (1982)

Figure 14. Grain size distribution

Appendix C – Calculations

Dry unit density & void ratio

𝑀soil 𝐺𝑠 𝜌𝑤
𝜌𝑑 = =
𝑤 ⋅ 𝑤 ⋅ ℎ0 1 + ⅇ
278.48𝑔
𝜌𝑑 = = 1.66𝑔/𝑐𝑚3 = 1664𝑘𝑔/𝑚3 = 16.32𝑘𝑁/𝑚3
6.35𝑐𝑚 ⋅ 6.35𝑐𝑚 ⋅ 4.15cm
2.67 ∙ 1000𝑘𝑔/𝑚3
𝜌𝑑 = 1664𝑘𝑔/𝑚3 = ⇒ e = 0.605
1+ⅇ

Stress & Area Correction

𝐴𝑠 = 𝑤(𝑤 − 𝛿𝑙 )
𝑁𝑐𝑎𝑝 + 𝑁ℎ𝑎𝑛𝑔𝑒𝑟 + 𝑁𝑤𝑒𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡
𝜎𝑛 =
𝐴𝑠
𝑇
𝜏=
𝐴𝑠

𝐴𝑠 = 6.35𝑐𝑚(6.35𝑐𝑚 − 0.1𝑐𝑚) = 39.69𝑐𝑚2 = 0.0040𝑚2

4.31𝑁 + 54.60𝑁 + 44.48𝑁
𝜎𝑛 = = 25847.5𝑃𝑎 = 25.85𝑘𝑃𝑎
0.004𝑚2
77.35𝑁
𝜏= = 19337.5𝑃𝑎 = 19.34𝑘𝑃𝑎
0.004𝑚2

Friction Angle
𝑡𝑎𝑛 𝜙 = 𝑆𝐿𝑂𝑃𝐸
𝑡𝑎𝑛 𝜙 = 0.8864 ⇒ 𝜙 = 41.55°

Volume Change
∆𝑉 𝛿𝑣
=
𝑉 ℎ0
∆𝑉 −0.00016𝑐𝑚
= = −3.86 × 10−5
𝑉 4.15𝑐𝑚
Appendix D – Work distribution
Sobhan Bhattacharya: Lab test, objective, procedure
Yu-Wei Hwang: Lab test, post processing data, results, discussion
Yu-Hsuan Lee: Lab test, calculation, combination and edition